Evolution is mathematically impossible

[VirOptimus]

Impressive credentials, but lacks the discipline needed to address my theory, which would be the study of the nerve (or other) pathways involved in the brain/emotion cycle. In my reading I haven't found such a study.

You have placed yourself, imo, in the same camp as the one who stated that the only function of the heart is to pump blood. Probably because that is the only function that can be observed.​

You have no ”theory”, just empty assertions.

 

[pitabread]

Design is a plan from which something is created or fabricated. Just reverse engineer the human hand and you'll see the plan (many such diagrams are available).

How exactly does one reverse engineer the human hand? What "plan" are you referring to?

I'm only trying to persuade you and others that I believe that we were designed, and not the result of happenstance.

Then why do you keep projecting as to why science hasn't reached the same conclusions you have?

 

[pitabread]

Functional complexity suggests design, imo.

How so?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Impressive credentials, but lacks the discipline needed to address my theory, which would be the study of the nerve (or other) pathways involved in the brain/emotion cycle. In my reading I haven't found such a study.

You have placed yourself, imo, in the same camp as the one who stated that the only function of the heart is to pump blood. Probably because that is the only function that can be observed.​

Unanswered questions do not constitute a theory. You currently do not have a theory. You do not even seem to have a testable hypothesis. What reasonable test would refute your idea if it was wrong? If you cannot come up with a test you only have a WAG.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You have no ”theory”, just empty assertions.

It's not a scientific "theory", just an idea.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How exactly does one reverse engineer the human hand? What "plan" are you referring to?

The same way mechanical devices are reverse engineered; you disassemble it, to see how it works. Didn't De Vinci do this?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How so?

Too complex not to be designed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Unanswered questions do not constitute a theory. You currently do not have a theory. You do not even seem to have a testable hypothesis. What reasonable test would refute your idea if it was wrong? If you cannot come up with a test you only have a WAG.

THEORY | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

[ C ] a statement of an opinion or an explanation of an idea that is believed to be true, but might be wrong:

You guys have been attacking my theory as if it were presented as a scientific one. It's just an idea, nothing more.

 

[pitabread]

The same way mechanical devices are reverse engineered; you disassemble it, to see how it works.

Okay, so you can see how it works. What does that have to do with how the human hand was designed?

 

[pitabread]

Too complex not to be designed.

You're begging the question. How does complexity indicate design?

And how are you measuring complexity? What does "too complex" mean?

 

[Subduction Zone]

THEORY | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

[ C ] a statement of an opinion or an explanation of an idea that is believed to be true, but might be wrong:

You guys have been attacking my theory as if it were presented as a scientific one. It's just an idea, nothing more.

Inappropriate dictionary to appeal to. Since we are discussing the sciences one needs to use a scientific theory, not a "theory" as used by a layman. The sort of "theory" that you used is the kind that earns the epithet "only a theory". That does not apply to scientific theories. The bar is much much higher for them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too complex not to be designed.

That sounds like an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

 

[Speedwell]

Too complex not to be designed.

Complexity is a mathematical concept. No appeal to complexity is any good without the math to back it up.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That sounds like an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

I have stated as much in the past.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You're begging the question. How does complexity indicate design?

And how are you measuring complexity? What does "too complex" mean?

Would you agree that it's too complex for science to explain?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Complexity is a mathematical concept. No appeal to complexity is any good without the math to back it up.

Evolution can supply that; steps and processes needed for hand (and all connections) to evolve.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Inappropriate dictionary to appeal to. Since we are discussing the sciences one needs to use a scientific theory, not a "theory" as used by a layman. The sort of "theory" that you used is the kind that earns the epithet "only a theory". That does not apply to scientific theories. The bar is much much higher for them.

I don't think you and others are going to allow ID to be such a theory.

 

[pitabread]

Would you agree that it's too complex for science to explain?

No, I don't agree with that. Especially since there is a scientific explanation.

Meanwhile, you didn't answer my questions.

How does complexity indicate design?
How are measuring complexity?
What does "too complex" mean?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I don't agree with that. Especially since there is a scientific explanation.

Meanwhile, you didn't answer my questions.

How does complexity indicate design?
How are measuring complexity?
What does "too complex" mean?

The hand appears to have been designed. What more is needed?

 

[pitabread]

The hand appears to have been designed. What more is needed?

A lot more. You need a coherent explanation as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

Why are you having trouble providing that explanation?